Catholic opponents of same-sex marriage - would you ban all marriage not recognised by the Church?

[stanczyk]

From the 'nose bleed seats"…it’s because the “sins” you listed affect THEM all too often…and their families…brothers…sisters…mothers…fathers…but homosexuality and same sex marriage is an “easy target”…doesn’t really effect them with any life changing results.

Good point. It is easier to marginalize a homosexual couple you’ve never met than your sibling who is living out of wedlock, who has become humanized. Interestingly, you often see the conservatives with a gay relative will come around on this particular issue, too (like Dick Cheney, for instance, who supports gay marriage due to his gay daughter).

 

[livingwordunity]

Good point. It is easier to marginalize a homosexual couple you’ve never met than your sibling who is living out of wedlock

The Catholic Church doesn’t support living out of wedlock.

It’s hypocritical for liberals to criticize the Catholic Church for limiting the definition of marriage when liberals are placing their own limits on it.

 

[Slavonic]

It’s hypocritical for liberals to criticize the Catholic Church for limiting the definition of marriage when liberals are placing their own limits on it.

It’s not a matter of whether there should be limits or not. It’s what those limits are.

 

[Allegra]

Precisely. I don’t hear anybody arguing that adultery should be outlawed. Same goes for fornication and cohabiting unwed couples. These behaviors are just as sinful as homosexuality. Yet I only see Catholics up in arms about homosexuals, and turning a blind eye to rampant adultery and fornication in our society. Hypocrisy?

Are you kidding me? The Catholic Church is absolutely agaisnt fornication and adultery and continuously states them immoral along with homosexuality and for the same reasons. Catholics are not calling for homosexual acts to be illegal. They are responding to a demand that everyone should be forced under law to consider homosexual relationships as the same as marriage. If there were people who were trying to say that no one should be allowed to call fornication or adultery wrong and fornication must now be referred to as “love” and adultery must now be referred to as “friendship” under penalty of law, you can bet Catholics would be just as annoyed. (And so would many other people as well, none of them bigots.)

 

[EviPolevhia]

They are responding to a demand that everyone should be forced under law to consider homosexual relationships as the same as marriage.

My neighbors and any businesses are forced under law to treat my mother and father as being in a legally binding partnership. The law already demands the observation of marriages between two people. It doesn’t matter to me if Joe and Jane across the street marry, why should it matter to me if Joe and John marry? Either way the State says the two are married and if I provide services that take in to account a married couple, either way I have no saying in who the spouse is. If John is my employee and he marries Jane and I provide services to spouses of Employees I am by law obligated to give those services to Jane, I cannot choose otherwise.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Assuming arguendo. My, how big of you to assume arguendo something for which there is overwhelming historical evidence, and no serious scholar disputes. Yes, let us assume it arguendo, since it is arguendo.

Please city to us the overwhelming historical evidence.

stanczyk:

I never said it does. You are committing what is called a “straw man fallacy.”

I stated that the passage does not support homosexual acts, or gay marriage. You say this is a straw man argument BUT in your very next sentence, you say this:

stanczyk:

Matthew 8:10 “Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith [as this gay couple].”

Hmm? Are you again implying that Jesus was condoning a homosexual union here? Based upon what language in the text?

stanczyk:

It is what it is.

And it is not what it is not.

Peace,
Robert

 

[stanczyk]

The Catholic Church doesn’t support living out of wedlock.

Well, that’s my point, and it is the reason I see hypocrisy is the treatment of homosexuals as opposed to the treatment of cohabiting couples.

Look, nobody is saying that sex outside of the holy sacrament of marriage is OK. At least I know I am not, and Christ certainly would never condone such a thing.

So we all agree it’s a sin to have sex outside of marriage. Likewise nobody thinks civil marriage is sacramental marriage, so no married gay couple is truly married in the eyes of Christ. Ideally, such a couple should be celibate. Likewise a cohabiting unmarried couple with a kid should be celibate. But who’s up in arms about the latter as opposed to the former? When was the last time a cohabiting unmarried couple was refused communion?

Broadly speaking, this is about how the Church treats gays with a special level of contempt above and beyond other sinners of the same caliber. There is no spiritual distinction between different kinds of fornication. Homosexual fornication is no more or less sinful So why treat these different classes of sinner differently? And don’t tell me that the Church opposes them both equally because it is obvious that they do. They oppose both equally in their words, and but in their actions they give far more attention to opposing homosexuals. There is a word for this thing, when your actions are not the same as your words… what is…?

And more to the point of this thread, gay marriage is no threat to the sacred institution of marriage. Homosexual couples have civil rights, and the Church needs to recognize that and get out of the way. The minute somebody tries to force the Church to sacramentally marry a gay couple, I will be the first one there as a human shield blocking the Church door. I would defend the holy sacraments of the Church to the death, and a same sex marriage can never be sacramental.

But this is not about sacraments, it’s about law. Equal protection under the law is so important.

 

[Allegra]

Good point. It is easier to marginalize a homosexual couple you’ve never met than your sibling who is living out of wedlock, who has become humanized. Interestingly, you often see the conservatives with a gay relative will come around on this particular issue, too (like Dick Cheney, for instance, who supports gay marriage due to his gay daughter).

Most studies that attempt to determine the number of “out” homosexuals put it around 10% of the general population. That means if a person knows at least a hundred people, one of them is likely to be gay. I personally know many more than that. I have two “out” gay friends. I have a few more gay aquaintances and some I suspect might be but don’t know well enough that I feel comfortable asking. (Nor is it really my business or relevant to our relationship) I also have two gay coworkers whom I admire a great deal. I’m not raising this point to wave the “I-have-gay-friends-so-I-can-say-what-I-want” flag. I’m trying to point out that there is a flaw in your arguement. Many of those who oppose gay marriage have someone close to them that they care for that is gay and nearly all of them have someone that they know that is gay. This is not about trying to marginalize or hurt strangers. This is about truth and the right to say it.

 

[Slavonic]

Homosexual fornication is no more or less sinful So why treat these different classes of sinner differently?

I was just reading the Catechism. Fornication is defined as being between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. Technically speaking, homosexual fornication does not exist in the Catechism. Homosexuality is its own subject heading with, from the short bit I’ve read, stronger language than other parts. Just thought it would be interesting to mention.

How would some feel if fornication were redefined to include same sex couples?

 

[Publisher]

Well, that’s my point, and it is the reason I see hypocrisy is the treatment of homosexuals as opposed to the treatment of cohabiting couples.

Look, nobody is saying that sex outside of the holy sacrament of marriage is OK. At least I know I am not, and Christ certainly would never condone such a thing.

So we all agree it’s a sin to have sex outside of marriage. Likewise nobody thinks civil marriage is sacramental marriage, so no married gay couple is truly married in the eyes of Christ. Ideally, such a couple should be celibate. Likewise a cohabiting unmarried couple with a kid should be celibate. But who’s up in arms about the latter as opposed to the former? When was the last time a cohabiting unmarried couple was refused communion?

Broadly speaking, this is about how the Church treats gays with a special level of contempt above and beyond other sinners of the same caliber. There is no spiritual distinction between different kinds of fornication. Homosexual fornication is no more or less sinful So why treat these different classes of sinner differently? And don’t tell me that the Church opposes them both equally because it is obvious that they do.

It is basically just prejudice against gays. It’s unacceptable!

And more to the point of this thread, gay marriage is no threat to the sacred institution of marriage. But gay people have civil rights, and the Church needs to recognize that and get out of the way. The minute somebody tries to force the Church to sacramentally marry a gay couple, I will be the first one there as a human shield blocking the Church door. I would defend the holy sacraments of the Church to the death, and a same sex marriage can never be sacramental.

But this is not about sacraments, it’s about law. Equal protection under the law is so important.

Friend, we share similar viewpoints. IF and when the unlikely event occurs that the State tries to force “sacramental” marriages conducted by religious institutions that do not accept same sex marriage as part of their faith tradition…I’ll be there blocking the door as a “living shield” upholding that religious freedom to conduct their rites and rituals as they see fit…HOWEVER we are not discussing what the church believes…we are seeking to deny the State defined civil rights of individuals BECAUSE OF OUR religious beliefs…and that is wrong.

My own faith tradition supports and blesses those same sex couples who wish to place their marriage under the “care of the Meeting”…and afford them the same right to petition the Meeting to have a “meeting for worship for marriage” in the Meetinghouse…

If your faith does not allow same sex marriage…don’t have one…but why try to prevent the State defined civil rights of others?

I keep hearing this is about “religious rights”…the religous rights of those who support same sex marriage aren’t being addressed…why not? If “your” religious rights allows you to deny the State defined civil rights of a minority…what else is next? Who’s rights will you next go after? The whole idea that same sex marriage is against religious rights to me is foolish…if your faith does not allow same sex marriage…DON’T HAVE ONE.

 

[Allegra]

When was the last time a cohabiting unmarried couple was refused communion?

This past Sunday. All over the world. My father and stepmother have been told not to present themselves for communion and they are, in fact, legally married. (illicetly, but legally) Really, cohabiting Catholics are told they can’t recieve communion all the time. And the Church doesn’t treat any sinner with contempt. Telling someone that their living arrangement isn’t a marriage isn’t contempt. It’s Truth. Remember Corinthians…“Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.”

 

[livingwordunity]

Friend, we share similar viewpoints. IF and when the unlikely event occurs that the State tries to force “sacramental” marriages conducted by religious institutions that do not accept same sex marriage as part of their faith tradition…I’ll be there blocking the door as a “living shield” upholding that religious freedom to conduct their rites and rituals as they see fit…HOWEVER we are not discussing what the church believes…we are seeking to deny the State defined civil rights of individuals BECAUSE OF OUR religious beliefs…and that is wrong.

A moral opinion is being given on both sides of this debate. And it’s wrong for you to say that people who have religious beliefs have less of a right to voice our moral opinion as others who are voicing their moral opinions on the issue of how marriage should and should not be defined.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

On the contrary, there had been a falsification of the translation to sanitize the passage in question for Victorian sensibilities, but, again, if you read the Bible in Greek there is no serious question as to what the word pais means.

Apparently, there is quite a serious dispute about what “pais” means. Some scholars suggest favored servant. Others, young boy. Still others suggest a homosexual partner that is a young boy, while others argue it is a young male homosexual partner. It really adds nothing to the debate because in the first instance, the Church calls all people to treat homosexual persons with dignity and respect. I’m fine with that. But nowhere in the bible does Jesus bless the alleged same-sex union in the story, nor did he call it a “marriage.” Rather, he praised the “faith” of the centurion for believing in Jesus’ power to heal.

Whether the centurion was in a homosexual relationship with the servant did not impact Jesus’ decision to heal the servant. Indeed, perhaps the servant was just a boy. If he was a boy (or even a teen-ager or a young man just entering adulthood), and a sex partner of the centurion, Jesus would have been condemning an innocent to death because of the sins of the centurion by not healing the servant. Why would any christian think that Jesus would behave such. But one cannot leap from Jesus’ compassionate actions, and the plain text of the scripture, to the conclusion that Jesus’ actions somehow condoned homosexuality, much less so-called “gay marriage.”

Peace,
Robert

 

[Publisher]

A moral opinion is being given on both sides of this debate. And it’s wrong for you to say that people who have religious beliefs have less of a right to voice our moral opinion as others who are voicing their moral opinions on the issue of how marriage should and should not be defined.

No one is against the vocalization of your religious beliefs…but the restriction of other’s State defined civil rights BASED on your religious convictions that not all of us hold is what is the sticking point for me…if your religous beleifs demand you not engage in same sex unions…>DON’T…but why seek to refuse other’s State defined civil rights BASED on your religous convictions?

 

[Bill_Martin]

No one is against the vocalization of your religious beliefs…but the restriction of other’s State defined civil rights BASED on your religious convictions that not all of us hold is what is the sticking point for me…if your religous beleifs demand you not engage in same sex unions…>DON’T…but why seek to refuse other’s State defined civil rights BASED on your religous convictions?

Exactly.

 

[stanczyk]

I was just reading the Catechism. Fornication is defined as being between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. Technically speaking, homosexual fornication does not exist in the Catechism. Homosexuality is its own subject heading with, from the short bit I’ve read, stronger language than other parts. Just thought it would be interesting to mention.

How would some feel if fornication were redefined to include same sex couples?

You know, I thought that same thing while I was writing it, but I went with fornication because it is a bit softer and less offensive a term than the true name of the sin in question.

 

[Allegra]

My neighbors and any businesses are forced under law to treat my mother and father as being in a legally binding partnership. The law already demands the observation of marriages between two people. It doesn’t matter to me if Joe and Jane across the street marry, why should it matter to me if Joe and John marry? Either way the State says the two are married and if I provide services that take in to account a married couple, either way I have no saying in who the spouse is. If John is my employee and he marries Jane and I provide services to spouses of Employees I am by law obligated to give those services to Jane, I cannot choose otherwise.

Your parents are, in fact, married. No one is disputing that. Same sex relationships are not the same as marriages. It may not matter to you if Joe and John play house, but it is a grave matter to others. A Catholic can not, in good conscience, support such a “union” and must be free to say so. If Joe’s insurance company wants to allow him to put John, Jane, John and Jane, or John, Jane, and Jake on his insurance plan, they are free to do that now. The reason insurance companies are required by law to allow John to put his wife on his insurance plan, is because it assumes that John and Jane are forming a household which will raise the future generation of our country and that it may be in the best interest of their family that Jane not work outside of the home, but instead stay home looking after Jenny, Jason, and John Junior. Other than that reason, the government has no interest in making such a law. There is also no reason that insurance benefits could not be extended to homosexual and cohabitating partners without redefining marriage in a way that offends many people. They could simply require other criterea. For example, a homeowner certainly has an insurable interest in a person whose name is on their home or home loan.

 

[livingwordunity]

No one is against the vocalization of your religious beliefs…but the restriction of other’s State defined civil rights BASED on your religious convictions

The laws of the state originally defined marriage as one man and one woman. We are only saying that marriage shouldn’t change from that original definition. We aren’t forcing anyone in any way. Both sides are debating how marriage should and should not be defined. And those of us who have faith in God are acting totally within our civil rights in how we are going about this debate.

 

[stanczyk]

Friend, we share similar viewpoints. IF and when the unlikely event occurs that the State tries to force “sacramental” marriages conducted by religious institutions that do not accept same sex marriage as part of their faith tradition…I’ll be there blocking the door as a “living shield” upholding that religious freedom to conduct their rites and rituals as they see fit…HOWEVER we are not discussing what the church believes…we are seeking to deny the State defined civil rights of individuals BECAUSE OF OUR religious beliefs…and that is wrong.

Amen, Publisher!

My own faith tradition supports and blesses those same sex couples who wish to place their marriage under the “care of the Meeting”…and afford them the same right to petition the Meeting to have a “meeting for worship for marriage” in the Meetinghouse…

I think that is a great tradition!

Within my Catholic context, we view marriage as a sacrament strictly between a man and a woman. Sexual relationships outside of this union (and certain kinds of sexual relationships within this union) are a sin. But there is a lot of sin out there. I firmly believe in loving the sinner while hating the sin.

A hundred years ago, unwed cohabiting couples were treated with the sort of intolerance gay couples received today (of course, being a gay couple back then was that much worse). Gradually society became tolerant of unmarried cohabitation and such a couple might go to Catholic mass every week, be a part of a parish, raise children, and nobody would bat an eye.

Ideally, an unmarried couple should be celibate until they get married. Same goes for a unmarried gay couple. But life is less than ideal. I look forward to the day where the Church has grown enough to be so accepting of gay couples as they are of unmarried cohabiting couples.

If your faith does not allow same sex marriage…don’t have one…but why try to prevent the State defined civil rights of others?

I keep hearing this is about “religious rights”…the religous rights of those who support same sex marriage aren’t being addressed…why not? If “your” religious rights allows you to deny the State defined civil rights of a minority…what else is next? Who’s rights will you next go after? The whole idea that same sex marriage is against religious rights to me is foolish…if your faith does not allow same sex marriage…DON’T HAVE ONE.

Amen, again!

 

[livingwordunity]

A hundred years ago, unwed cohabiting couples were treated with the sort of intolerance gay couples received today (of course, being a gay couple back then was that much worse). Gradually society became tolerant of unmarried cohabitation and such a couple might go to Catholic mass every week, be a part of a parish, raise children, and nobody would bat an eye.

Are you saying that two wrongs make a right?